Posted on 01/18/2007 7:50:55 AM PST by jveritas
The most lasting tragedy of the Vietnam War is that it has legitimized “giving aid and comfort to the enemy”. We are seeing the giving of aid and comfort to the enemy running wild in this war on terror and sadly not only among liberals and their media but also among some conservatives who some of them are right here on this great Free Republic.
When Al Qaeda terrorists, or the terrorist regimes in Iran and Syria, or the Iraqi insurgent terrorists whether they are Sunnis or Shia hear the speeches of defeatism coming from liberals and their media, or unfortunately coming from some conservatives who some of them are right here on Free Republic, will they feel comforted and aided by these speeches? Of course they will be comforted, and they will be embolden to fight more and more, kill more and more, destroy more and more, because they realize that many Americans do not have the will to fight a long and hard war.
Defeatism and providing aid and comfort to the enemy was something that we expected from liberals and their media because their hate to President Bush and the Republican Party is hundred of times more than their hate to the terrorists. However it is really sad that some conservatives and some members on this great forum are doing their share in providing aid and comfort to the enemy through their defeatist attitude.
Do the defeatists want to amend the Constitution so we will have the following? Stop the war and leave if we lose more than one thousand troops, or stop the war and leave if it lasts more than one year, or stop the war and leave if it costs more than 50 billions dollars, whichever comes first. Do they want to do this?
The defeatists who argue that Iraq is not part of the war on terror but rather it is just a civil war between Sunnis and Shia are wrong and naive beyond belief. Iraq is most definitely the central and most important front in the war on terror. It is in Iraq where Al Qaeda and their local Iraqi allies decided to fight the US. It is in Iraq where the islamic terrorists from all over the world are pouring in to fight the Americans. It is in Iraq where the terrorist regimes of Iran and Syria and their local Iraqi allies want to defeat the US so they can have total control of the Middle East. Since the terrorists are all over the world, then the best way to fight them is to attract them to one place to kill them. Whether it was planned or not, Iraq turned out to be the magnet that has been attracting the terrorists from all over the world, and that is the ultimate way to fight the war on terror and to kill as many terrorists as we can.
Every defeatist who is giving aid and comfort to the enemy should ask himself or herself this question: What will happen if we leave Iraq before we achieve complete victory? The First thing that will happen is that the enemy will be embolden beyond belief and the terrorists whether they are Sunnis or Shia, whether they are Al Qaeda, or Iran or Syria, will be given the ultimate victory that will embolden them thousands more time then when they were emboldened when the US left Beirut after the Marines barracks terrorist attack in 1983, or when the US left Somalia in 1993 after the terrorist killed 19 troops, or when no reprisal happened against the terrorists when they attacked many American targets through out the Clinton years. If our passiveness to the past terrorist attacks emboldened them in such a way to attack us on 9/11, think about what they can do to us if we give and leave Iraq and thus handle them the ultimate victory that they have been dreaming about for decades.
The defeatists must understand that if few terrorists sitting in a cave in Afghanistan with a small budget and few volunteers were able to do the 9/11 terrorist attacks, killed 3000 Americans, and caused over one trillion dollars in economic damages, then the terrorists control of Iraq and of the whole Middle East, and its vast oil resources will allow them to conduct terrorist attacks against us that we cannot imagine even in our worst nightmares. By controlling Iraq and the Middle East the terrorists will have hundreds of billions of dollars under their control that they will use it to attack us everywhere in the world and the US and cause unimaginable death, destruction and economic losses that will make 9/11 terrorist attacks look like a picnic in comparison. They will also use the oil weapon to bring the world economy to a disaster that will be many folds worse than that of the 1929 Depression.
Fellow Free Republic members, we are fighting the most important war since WW II. We are not fighting for the Iraqis in Iraq but we are fighting for ourselves, for our freedom and for our way of life. Let us all support our President and our brave troops because they need our support now more than ever.
Because "I" am not willing to fight?
Au contraire!
Been there, done that, when I was younger.
And now, that I am older and smarter, I am "willing" to fight a hell of a lot harder than we have fought.
We have all this airpower, but we refrain from using it because it will inflict massive collateral civilian casualties.
And, by gum, yes it will! So what?
The Sunni South has always been OUR tormentor. We keep PRETENDING that they're "just another party in the game".
We make this pretense for a variety of reasons, but in the end, they're dumb.
Fight? Use airpower to do the fighting. Great lopsided horrible casualty differentials.
Terrorize them into passivity.
Saddam did it.
And it worked too.
These Sunni Arab males are dead enders. They're going to fight no matter what. They need to be killed. Now, doing it the way we HAVE been doing it, by trying to separate the sheep from the wolves and wasting a lot of American lives and limbs...well...that's what has brought down the morale of the whole USA. There's no end in sight.
I told you the way to get to a swift end.
The President knows this option is out there.
He has publicly rejected it several times, simply because he doesn't want to be that "bad".
But that "bad" is what it is going to take.
Not willing too fight?
No. MORE willing to use firepower than our timid leadership.
And much clearer about who our enemy are, and what we have to do to subjugate them.
Now do please repeat that I am a defeatist again, so I can repeat that the only way to win the war, relatively quickly too, is to take sides in the civil war, arm our chosen sides, and support them in the killing campaign it will take to well and truly subjugate the Sunni Arabs for good, and offer the decisive Arabist alternative to the pro-Iranian Shi'a.
That's what the South really craves, and we have the power to give it to them.
We actually did the same sort of thing in Sarajevo. We decried the use of military power against the Bosnians, but we refused to arm them. Net result: maximize the misery and prolong the war.
Pick the necessary sides, let THEM slaughter their countrymen who need killing, provide them intelligence, logistics and air support, and WIN the damned thing in a year and a half. Or pretend that Americans are going to win a foreign civil war, refuse to take sides against our enemies, and LOSE. That's what we're committed to. I am not going to pretend that it might work, because it can't possibly work. It is idiocy incarnate.
The President needs to understand that by going to war he chose to take on the task of killing a lot of people, and step up the killing so that it is people reasonably allied with US who come out on top. We are not doing that now. We are refusing to do that now.
So we're going to play the hokey-pokey with our Marines again. I wish them good success on the battlefield, but it cannot change the result: political collapse in the United States followed by withdrawal and defeat.
We need to WIN within 18 months. To do THAT, we need to step up the civil war, pick the winning side, and arm them to victory. Bloody, nasty, but victorious in the end.
What we are doing ends in heartbreak. Do YOU want to see your country defeated? That's the course you are on. Calling me a defeatist or a traitor doesn't make it so.
You've got to look to your loyalties: to the US, first. That means making some really hard and nasty decisions and getting on with it.
It means picking sides and letting them do what is necessary to win.
Our Marines cannot do it alone, not in the numbers that are deployed or will be surged.
It's obvious.
If we follow your plan and shut up, we give victory to the enemy.
Bush is a stubborn SOB, but in the end he DID wise up about Rumsfeld, and about some of his strategy, and he DID back down on Miers. He CAN be bludgeoned into reason. What it takes is having his support collapse. He cannot be supported on this present course, not without specifically picking sides, because it won't win. If we support this strategy, we are signing onto Maginot and the defeat of our nation. The political pain needs to be awful until he finally backs down and sullenly does what he has to do: choose the side of the Kurds and the Arabist Shi'a, arm them, and let them go kill our enemies and theirs, the Sunni Arabs, and then let them consolidate their power against the pro-Iranian Shi'a militias.
That's what we have to do.
The longer we delay, the deeper in we go towards defeat.
Our victory is determined by our political cycle.
There's no gas left in the tank for a MAJOR American escalation, and Bush's surge isn't that.
So now the escalation must come within Iraq.
That CANNOT happen if we refuse to arm one side and let it cream the others.
Instead, they all hunker down and wait for the Democratic victory in 2008 that ends the US presence.
We can avoid that fate, but not by SUPPORTING the President.
He needs to be told what to do that will WIN.
Support the Arabist Shia and the Kurds and get it done.
That will WIN. Hands down.
It is nasty and will entail a lot of war crimes. But OUR soldiers will not be committing them, and it WILL result in victory.
Get it done.
I hope that is indeed the case, but the folks you're referring to - the cut and runners - constitute a barely perceptible part of FR. ....hardly worth a mention. Most Freepers who've criticized the way things are going in Iraq (and the WOT in general) are doing so from the exact opposite position -- they've been advocating substantially increased aggressiveness, specifically directed at Sadr and his gang. ....and heartily support the President's "troop surge" and change in military leadership. In short, they want an increase in ass-kicking, not a military disengagement.
"AL Qaeda, Iran and Syria has planned the sectarian violence so they can drive the US out of Iraq and declare their divine victory, control Iraq and the Middle East, and use its oil resources to destroy us and the West. If you read Zaraqawi letters before he was killed you know exactly that the whole Al Qaeda plan from the begining was to create such a secterian war so the American people will lose "hear to fight" and surrender Iraq and the Middle East to the terrorists. If we leave Iraq because we think it is just a civil war between Sunnis and Shia then we have fallen into the trap of AL Qaeda and Iran."
Again, this is entirely clear headed and completely true.
The PROBLEM is that your choice of strategy and tactics will not achieve your goal.
And, in fairness, it's not YOUR choice, it's the PRESIDENT'S choice. You are very loyal to the President, which is commendable.
If the President made the RIGHT choice, and took the sides we need to take, we would be well on our way to the victory we MUST have or face disaster. But he has made bad choices, and continues to be stubborn in refusing to take the ugly choice to do what must be done to win.
You understand the need to win, but you are too loyal to the President. He is wrong. His strategy is bad. He shouldn't be supported. He needs to be hit by the ugly two-by-four of reality FROM US, HIS ALLIES, so that he FINALLY choses the right strategy option and takes sides in the civil war, arming and supporting the sides that will end up being our allies when all is over. We CAN'T make Iraqi Sunnis our allies. We just deposed them after a century of rule and centuries of dominance before that. They HATE the Shi'ites, who WILL dominate any democracy. We have to kill these guys, not try to be nice to them. That's what taking sides MEANS.
Similarly, we CAN'T make peace with the Mahdi militias et al. They are in Iran's watchpocket. They are NEVER going to come around. Like Communists, they will undermine. They need to be marginalized and, eventually, destroyed.
WHO CAN DO IT?
Not the Kurds. They hold Kurdistan admirably. They MUST NOT be asked to give up oil and treasure to their former oppressors. It's madness!
It has to be the Arabist Iraqi Shi'a. THEY are the majority, but they are the weakest and least organized of all. They voted in a government, but the pro-Iranian militias have the guns. And the Sunnis will not stop killing everyone in sight. We have to consciously chose the deaths of the Sunni Arabs and the pro-Iranian militias, by consciously arming the Arabist government faction in its own right. FIRST they will slaughter the Sunni Arabs. SO WHAT? They're the chief cause of OUR misery. Like Nazis, they have to die for us to win. And WE can't kill them all: too barbaric. But Shi'ite Arabist Iraqis can, and will, given the weapons. So give them the weapons. Power seeks its own level. Right now, ravaged by bombings and death squads, Shi'ites HAVE to rely on the pro-Iran militias. But arm them ourselves, and they gain power and territory in their own right. And they're IRAQI, not Iranian. The pro_Iranian militias either open a new front in the Civil War (which Kurdish Sunnis will assist in defeating - OR - more likely, they find an accomodation with their coreligionists and cousins that leaves the country uncomfortable, but under command, and specifically under the command of our two militarily allied factions.
It's obvious.
So why doesn't Bush want to do it?
It means letting a Shi'ite Army go butcher Sunnis and commit ethnic cleansing.
So he's trying to pretend Nazis can be made our friends to avoid arming a side to commit crimes against humanity.
To win, we have to arm them to commit crimes against humanity.
OUR soldiers can't be asked to do that. But they can be gotten out of the way.
If we want to win in Barbaria, we have to let the barbarians fight as they must, and pick the winner.
You SEE what the outcome has to be, but you are supporting the President in a pipe dream. Let your loyalty to the future of America supersede your loyalty to Bush. He's gone down a rathole. He's not going to be happy about having to back down and order things that will produce horror. But he HAS to for us to win. And the only way he can be gotten there is if the Maginot Line Cheering Section knocks it off and says to him that, respectfully, that can't work and you have to do the necessary evil so that we can have a tomorrow.
When I saw the title, I thought this was going to be about the folks pushing Rudy for President.
You said -- "Fellow Free Republic members, we are fighting the most important war since WW II. We are not fighting for the Iraqis in Iraq but we are fighting for ourselves, for our freedom and for our way of life. Let us all support our President and our brave troops because they need our support now more than ever."
They're not gonna win this war on terror, unless our government declares war on Islam and drives that evil and perverse religion out of existence. Anything short of that will only extend the war longer. Get ready for the 100 years war, because that's what we're in for now.
And if the Democrats succeed in shutting down this effort, anytime soon, that war will be over here, on this side of the water. Get ready for that, too -- because I believe that's what is coming next.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said -- "Many Americans have no concept of what losing in Iraq will mean to our own comfy lives here in this nation. We must win or face miserable changes and deadly consequences."
Yep, and I'm afraid "we're going down" (in time) because we're not really fighting the real war against Islam, which is the *idealogy* that promotes all this Islamic terrorism. What our President in inclined to do ("Islam is a peaceful religion; we have a war on terror) -- is the equivalent to having a "war on guns" so we can put the criminals out of business.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said -- "The WOT is lost."
That's because it is a stupid war. Much better to be a war on Islam -- where the *idealogy* for all the terrorist attacks come from. Destroy the religion and you destroy the terrorists.
Having a WOT is like having a "war on guns" to put the criminals out of business.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said -- "We won't do that, and won't win."
And we won't win until we *disabuse* everyone of the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion -- like the President keeps affirming.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Yep. and the Secret Service does also.
You said -- "there's a list :)"
Have you handed it over to the FISA court yet?
Regards,
Star Traveler
I think it will be at least a hundred year war because we will not face up to fundamental Islam and kill it.
We will only tackle the symptoms, the disease will still be there.
And if the Democrats succeed in shutting down this effort, anytime soon, that war will be over here, on this side of the water. Get ready for that, too -- because I believe that's what is coming next.
I am more optimistic. I believe we will get the chance to try out the new Bush plan for Iraq. - tom
Great Graphic Salem :)
Exactly.
There are responses on this thread that remind me that Neville Chamberlain was also an isolationist conservative, who didn't want to fight the Nazi's in Poland.
We know how that one ended.
I disagree.
We are not going to send waves of missionaries to try and convert Islam.
It would be what would be necessary to really permanently change the situation on the ground, but it is beyond the ken of ANY government in 2007. Our Republic in no sense can support a Crusade against Islam.
We can, nevertheless, win a war in an Islamic country like Iraq. Winning means having a friendly government in place able to fend for itself at the end. It's a low threshold, but a real one. So long as they are not launching jihadists at us or supporting terrorists against us, they're friendly enough for our purposes.
In Iraq, it doesn't mean converting the Iraqis. Maybe that would finally bring permanent peace and civilization, but it's beyond the capacity of American government to even contemplate, let alone organize.
What we CAN do is pick the sides that are the least hostile to US, and arm them and support them so that they cream anyone else. Then we end up with a police state puppet, but that police state puppet will not be supporting terrorists against us. That's victory. Whitehall democracy? Maybe someday. But that's impossible until you have defeated the military threat. And that's not what our current strategy is doing.
Pick sides, arm them, and win. THEN we can start administering the peace.
You said -- "The mood here during the Kosovo action was very anti-war."
Yep, it just gave a good position to the Muslims in Kosovo, to keep perpetuating their world-wide domination of Islam, like they keep saying everywhere you have an Imam opening his mouth....
Regards,
Star Traveler
If someone ever signs up as Hagelbuff, that's where I'd look...
No question about that.
But I am one freeper who questions what the he!! our own military is doing when they seemingly put the scumbag Democrat lawyers of JAG in charge of the war. And these 13 politically correct "rules of engagement"? Gimme a break....
Yeah, let's win the war, definitely, but let's fight it the right way - - to WIN - - quickly, decisively, and mercilessly.
Some may be stuck on stupid, but my little tentative hypothesis is that you are stuck on steriods.
Is it possible as a Plan B, if Plan A fails (which it will if the Iraqi government fails to adhere to its promises, and continues to pursue its ethnic cleansing, and thwarting of US troops to the extent they interfere), to at once both partition the country de factor or de jure, while also preventing Iraq from becoming a sanctuary and base for terrorist perps? Do you have an opinion?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.